

ST^TEJVLEN 

OF A FEW OF THE ' ^ I' 



POINTS IN THE CONTEST BY Af C: BALDWIN 

H 

Of the Fifth Congressional District of Michigan, 

FOE THE SEAT IN THE THIRTY-NINTH OONORESS, 

OCCUPIED BY R. B. TROWBRIDGE. 


To The Honorable, the Committee on 

.Klections : 

In contesting the seat now occupied 
by Hon. H. E. Trowbridge, it is proper 
for me to present for your consideration, 
the facts of my case, and the points up-! 
on which I rely. The facts will be un- j 
disputed, leaving it for the committee 
onl}’- to apply the law to those facts, i 
and award the seat to the one produc- j 
ing the better title. 

In November, 1864, an election was 
lield in the Fifth Congressional District 
of Michigan, comprising six counties, 1 
with the followiim result: , 


For BalcHvln. 

For Trowbridge. 

Oakland County. 

.3,802 

3,746 

Alaconib “ . 

.2,177 

2,054 

St. Clair “ . 

.2,064 

1,818 



7.55 

Lapeer “ . 

.1,248 

1,471 

Livingston “ . 

.1,98;5 

1,624 


11,593 

11,468 


giving Baldwin a majority of one hun¬ 
dred and twenty-five. The legality of 
these votes is not questioned by Mr. 
Trowbridge, but he claims that at the 
same election, at various places outside 
of and beyond the limits of the State of 
Michigan, he received the votes of sev¬ 
eral hundred soldiers, thus overcoming 
the majority of Baldwin on the home 
vote, and giving him a majority. This 
fact is also admitted, but it is insisted 
lliat no person had any i-ight to vote 
for any office to be filled by the elec¬ 
tors of the State of Michigan, unless 
the vote was cast in the township or 
ward where the voter resided.” 


I am well aware of the sympathy ex¬ 
isting for the many brave and patriotic 
soldiers of our land; that legisla¬ 
tion has almost invariably been exer¬ 
cised in their behalf; and that whenever 
a doubt existed they had the benefit of 
that doubt. I would not oppose the 
extension to them of every reasonable 
privilege, but I insist that we ought not 
to permit our sympathy to overstep the 
safeguards of our State Constitutions, 
prescribed to protect the rights of the 
people and the purity of the elective fran¬ 
chise. No person ought to be permit¬ 
ted to vote for an elective officer, unless 
the State Constitution sanctions it. 

The Legislature of the State of Mich¬ 
igan, by an act passed in the win¬ 
ter of 1864, made certain provisions for 
the exercise of the right of suftrage by 
the various citizens of that State in the 
military service of the United States, 
and it is under that act, and by virtue 
of its provisions, that the said votes, giv¬ 
ing Mr. Trowbridge a majority, were 
cast. In canvassing them, the board of 
State Canvassers gave him the certifi¬ 
cate. I contend that these votes are 
unconstitutional and void, and ought to 
be rejected. 

The Constitution of the United States, 
Art. I, Sec. 2, Sub. 1, providing for Rep¬ 
resentatives in Congress, requires that 
the electors in each State shall have the 
same qualifications requisite for electors 
in the most numerous branch of the 
State Legislature; and by Section 4 of 


£ m 100 8£0 0 


SS3d9NOO dO AdVdan 













2 


\ 


the same article, that the times, plab'es 
and manner of holding elections shall 
be prescribed in each State by the Leg¬ 
islature thereof. I concede that these 
provisions should have a fair and liberal 
construction. That the power to be 
exercised by the State Legislature, be 
employed in a manner best calculated 
to expand, and not diminish, the polit¬ 
ical rights of the people. But are there 
no restrictions upon this exercise of 
power ? Is there no coi4trol over State 
Legislatures ? They are created by the 
people of the States, speaking through 
the State Constitutions, and are confined 
in the performance of their duties by 
the limitations of those instruments. 
Those endeavoring to sustain this law 
assume that it is of no consequence what 
the Constitiiition • of the State provides, 
—the Constitut^ioR of the United States 
confers this i p'owor upon a State Legis¬ 
lature, and dt oa.si exercise it irrespec¬ 
tive of any' prohibition of a State Con¬ 
stitution. Nothing can be more absurd. 
A State 'Legislature is created by the 
State Constitution. Its power is de¬ 
fined, its action in many respects is re¬ 
stricted, and when it assumes powers in 
' matters prohibited, all such acts are ab¬ 
solutely void. In cases where the Con¬ 
stitution is silent upon matters coming 
before the body, there is no doubt of 
^the affirmative power to act, and per- 
■haps, in such cases, State Legislatures 
may provide for voting at such places as 
they please. The provision of the Con¬ 
stitution of the United States under 
consideration, was never intended to 
confer powers upon a State Legislature, 
in opposition to the Constitution of the 
State. The true construction is that 
the State Legislature shall prescribe the 
time and place, subservient to and in ac¬ 
cordance with the local Constitution 
creating it. 

I wish to call your attention to the 
various constitutional provisions of the 
State of Michigan upon the question of 
suffrage. In the appendix—“A,” I have 
extracted the provisions of the Consti¬ 
tution of 1835, the amendment of 1839, 
and the Constitution of 1850. By that 
of 1835, no special restriction as to resi¬ 
dence was placed upon the voter, and 
he could vote for the offices at any place 


in the district, and this might embrace 
the entire State. The facility for fraud¬ 
ulent voting afforded by this provision 
was such that the people, in 1839, 
amended it by requiring, in every in¬ 
stance, that the elector should vote in 
the town or ward in which he had his 
residence. This was followed by the 
Constitution of 1850,—the one now in 
force—making no change in respect to 
the place of voting. The people, in 
their organic law, have thus made the 
exercise of the right of suftrage in the 
town or ward, an essential qualification. 
No distinction was made in offices—^the 
terms applying to all, from the Presi¬ 
dent of the United States to the over¬ 
seers of highways. 

This peculiarity of the Constitution 
of Michigan deserves careful considera¬ 
tion. In providing for the exercise of 
the right of sufiVage by the electors, 
the language is general, prescribing and 
limiting the qualification for every office. 
In other portions of the same instru¬ 
ment, certain designated officers were 
to be chosen at the same elections Avith 
Representatives in the State Legislature 
and Representatives in Congress. It 
will be observed but one qualification is 
fixed in all of these cases—sex, age, 
citizenship, and voting in the township 
OR AVAR© Avhere the elector resides. It 
cannot for a moment be contended that 
a vote for a Representative in the State 
Legislature may be a legal vote, and 
one for a Prosecuting Attorney be ille¬ 
gal. Both officers are created by the 
same instrument, and elected at the 
same time by the same voters; and com¬ 
mon sense Avould dictate that all votes, 
legal or illegal, for one office, Avould be 
subject to like conditions as to the 
other, and no different course could 
properly be pursued. 

The act of 1864 Avas broad and gen¬ 
eral in its terms. It named no officers, 
except in the closing sections, specify¬ 
ing to Avhom the various returns should 
be made. At the election in Nov. 1864, 
votes vere cast out of the State for all 
the various officers to be chosen at the 
time—and if any votes were invalid for 
one office, the disability pertained to all. 
In construing that provision of the 
National Constitution giving State Leg- 





3 


islatures power to fix the time and place 
of holding elections for members of 
Congress, one of the most important 
qualifying provisions is overlooked,— 
that of requiring electors to have like 
qualifications with electors for State 
Representatives. 

The National Constitution jDrovides 
that, “ each house shall be the judge of 
the elections, returns and qualifications 
of its own members;” but this does not 
intend arbitrary and illegal action, but 
that this action shall be governed by 
certain, regular and previously estab¬ 
lished rules. Not that the body shall 
make law in so “judging,” but in constru¬ 
ing it,established,principles as enunciated 
by the Courts and by Legislative bodies, 
shall be taken as the controlling guide. 
In nearly every contest thatjs made for 
a,seat in Congress, State laws and State 
Constitutions are examined ; and when 
a doubtful law. has been brought before 
the proper court for determination^ I 
insist that the construction the court of{ 
last resort of any state ■ gives to such 
laws, should be binding aipon every or¬ 
ganized body wherever they are again , 
brought directly in review. 

In the case of Vallandigham i vs. 
Campbell, Mr. Stanton,, of Ohio, in, dis¬ 
cussing a question raised, said in refer¬ 
ence to the obligatory nature of State 
decisions, and particularly of their ap¬ 
plicability in guiding and .controlling the 
action of Congress upon the same laws, 
“I do hold that the courts and consti¬ 
tuted authorities of Ohio have a right, 
in the last resort, to put a construction 
on their own Constitution, and on their 
own laws—and whatever is held by the 
Ohio courts to be a sound construction of 
an Ohio law, or an Ohio Constitution, is 
its true construction everywhere, and 
whenever it may be called in question ; 
and the United States Supreme Court 
is bound to follow it/’ 

In Michigan, after the board of Stale 
Canvassers had passed upon the votes, 
the case of Twichell vs. Blodgett, (13 
Mich. Rep.) came before the S^upreme 
Court. The only question involved 
was the constitutionality of the Soldiers’ 
Voting law of Michigan of 1864. The 
parties were candidates for the office of 
Prosecuting Attorney^ and Blodgett had 


a ma,]ority of the home vote. The sol¬ 
diers’ vote elected Twichell. All the 
Supreme Court Judges were republicans, 
and with one dissenting voice, it was 
held that the act of 1864, giving sol¬ 
diers the right to vote out of the State, 
was unconstitutional, and the office was 
awarded to Blodgett. To the mind of 
any one disinterested, this opinion of 
the Supreme Court of Michigan ought 
to settle all questions pertaining to the 
matter between Mr. Trowbridge and 
myself The votes were cast at the 
same election, under the provisions of the 
same law; and, the case divested of all 
purely technical questions, raised only 
to obscure, would present such a state 
of affairs that a candid person, endowed 
with an honest desire to determine cor¬ 
rectly, could hardly find ooeasion to 
cavil, about my right to the seat for 
which I am .contendingi The votes for 
Congress were referred to in the opin¬ 
ion / of the court. All the members 
had. a strong bias in favor of sustaining 
the 14w, but like upright judges, they 
were not to be swayed by any partisan 
feeling; 

I have annexed to my case the opin¬ 
ions of i all the justices of the court up¬ 
on the question, and I believe I might, 
with every confidence of a favorable re¬ 
sult, after presenting them leave the 
matter for your consideration. But 
it will be insisted that, though that 
act is void as to State officers, it is valid 
as to to the national ones. Many re¬ 
fined theories have been presented on 
the part of my competitor and his 
friends to givo* this law force in his 
case, though it may be a dead letter to 
all elective offi.ces in Michigan. 

1st. It is contended that the Con¬ 
stitution of the United States only re¬ 
quires the elector to have the same 
requisite as to citizenship, color and age; 
and that time, place and manner of 
holding the elections are merely inci¬ 
dent to the exercise of the right, and 
that by making this distinction, the 
State Legislature could clearly cause 
pplls to be opened in distant States for 
the election of Congressmen, and at the 
same time restrain all other electors to 
their home voting places. This theory 
may be a plausible one, but it depends 






4 : 


■\vliolly upon the fact whether the place | 
of exercising the right of suffrage is 
any part of the “qualification.” If it be, 
the theory absolutely falls, and nothing 
is left to Mr. Trowbridge to rely upon, 
except force, or the power of numbers 
to sustain his pretension. I 

Though the National Constitution ; 
empower the State Legislature to fix 
the time, place and manner of holding 
elections, it confers no power to endow 
a person with the right of voting unless 
he have like qnalihcations with State 
Legislative electors. The Supreme | 
Court of Michigan hold that the “place” i 
of voting is a “ qualification ” and as 
that body is the only authoritative one 
empowered to give a judicial construc¬ 
tion to the Constitution of ^Michigan, I 
might consider that question set at rest. 
By referring to the various matters that 
liave been deemed qualifications in the 
several States, tlie utter fallacy of this re¬ 
fined reasoning will be evident. The 
provisions in the different states fixing 
<|ualifications for electors, have not only 
been as numerous as the number of 
states, but have been repeatedly changed 
in each state. At an early day in our 
history, property was an essential “ qual¬ 
ification” in nearly all of them: in every 
one, 1 believe, actual residence is indis¬ 
pensable, and yet these are all “ quali¬ 
fications,” and are of the same nature as 
that fixing the “place” where the vote ! 
is deposited. 

The term “ qualification ” means, when ^ 
applied to voters,—such requisites of 
age, sex, color, property, residence and ^ 
place of voting, as is required by the ' 
organic law; and as between electors j 
lor Kepresentatives in Congress and in ! 
the State Legislatures, the Constitution ^ 
of the United States made no distinc-' 
tion, but expressly fixed the same con¬ 
dition upon each. 

2nd. It is contended because the Leg¬ 
islature of Michigan admitted certain 
members elected by the soldiers’ vote, 
it is a precedent for Congress. I am 
aware that much stress will be jilaced 
upon the al^Etion of the jVIichigan Legis¬ 
lature. There ’were in both bodies 
Iburteen seats contested for this cause ; 
and when the matter was referred to 
the appropriate Committee, that of the 


Senate, in a document that evinced in¬ 
tegrity, ability and statesmanship, re¬ 
ported unanimously in fitvor of recog¬ 
nizing the action of the Supreme Court. 
When the cases were brought to test in 
that body, those elected by soldiers’ 
votes actually voted upon tlie question 
of admitting members similarly situated 
with themselves, thus virtually acting 
in their own case; and the Senate only 
with the addition of these votes, gave a 
majority in favor of nullifying the action 
of the court. Strange and discreditable 
as this was, it was paralleled and excel¬ 
led in the House. 

In the House, the majority of the 
Committee made a long report in sub¬ 
stance that they had full power to vote 
, anybody in as members of the House, 
and urging the fact that, as they had at 
the commencement of the session, be- 
i fore the Supreme Court had solemnly 
‘ pronounced the law' unconstitutional, 
admitted the members elected under 
j that law, therefore, it w^as “ res adjudi- 
I cata,” and they would not reconsider 
; tlieir action or retrace their steps. It 
wdll be borne in mind that all the “hun¬ 
gry aspirants ” for legislative honors 

* w'ere hovering around these bodies hav- 
} ing seats therein, and in a position to 

use their influence to effect their ])ur- 
poses. Their acts cannot be chaitacter- 
ized in very mild language, but it is un¬ 
necessary for me to attempt it. Every 
man learned in the law'^ in INlichigan, 
,w'hose opinion wms worth anything, and 
.without distinction of party, sustained 
the court and rejoiced at their justice 
and independence in making the decis¬ 
ion ; and the action as w'ell as the mo¬ 
tives of that Legislature wmre severely 
animadverted upon in the State by the 
leading members, and the ])ress of the 
republican party. To sustain me in 
this statement, let me call your atten¬ 
tion to tiie few extracts I have collated 
I in Appendix “ 1>,” and particularly the 
one from the Detroit Tribune, the lead¬ 
ing republican ])a|)er of ^Michigan. That 
' ])aper, keenly alive as it is to the inter- 

• est of its party and of the soldiers, did 
; not hesitate to brand this action of the 
j Legislature as caused by “ lax morals, 
land reckless partizan leadership.” In 
I view of all the facts connected wdth this 


0 


subject, I contend it is of no weight as { 
an antliority, and a true citizen of Mich-, 
igan ought to blush at the recital of 
such acts from the chosen Representa¬ 
tives of the people of that “ beautiful 
])eninsula,” and hasten to purify her fair 
lame from the contamination these dis¬ 
graceful proceedings have brought upon 
her. 

I have cited the authorities in the j 
Appendix relating to the legislative ac¬ 
tion to show the opinion, in part, of the 
people of ]\Iichigan. I might multiply 
them, with a little research, to an un-, 
limited extent, but those I have x)re- 
sented are suflicient. 

In further contesting the positions 
assumed, I again contend that when a 
State Constitution fixes the “ place ” of 
holding the election, it is a “ qualifica¬ 
tion ” in the full sense of the term, and 
the Legislature have no power to alter 
or control it. The Constitution of a 
State is its “ORGANIC LAW.” 
It creates Legislatures, gives them vital¬ 
ity, and sets them in motion. It endows 
electors with their rights and prescribes 
the manner of their exercise. The Leg¬ 
islature, without an express grant from 
the State Constitution, has nothing to i 
do with this exercise of the right by the | 
electors. That, though Congress has ; 
the power of judging of the qualifica- ; 
tions of its own members, it is as much | 
restricted in the exercise of that power i 
by previously established rules and reg- ■ 
ulations as is a court in construing a ! 
statute. If these rules were to be va-! 
ried to suit the whims or the caprices | 
of a party merely because it was in the 1 
ascendency, there would be no guide for 
contested cases, and no certainty that 
justice would be done in any emergency. 

I further insist that the State Consti¬ 
tution is not only the proper place to 
ascertain the qualifications of the elec¬ 
tors, but if the time and place “ are 
fixed by that instrument, they are also 
qualifications,” and control the action of 
the committee. 

To sustain me in the foregoing propo¬ 
sition, I will first cite the case of Shiel 
vs. Thayer, in the 37th Congress. 

In the able i-eport of the Chairman of 
the Committee of elections I find the 
following: 

“ The Committee would have had no 


difficulty in coming to this conclusion, 
had it not been for the action of the 
Legislature of Oregon, upon this sub¬ 
ject. Notwithstanding this Constitu¬ 
tional PROVISION, that general elections 
shall be held on the first Monday of 
June, biennially, the Legislature of Or¬ 
egon SEEMS TO HAVE RELIEVED, THAT IT 
HAD POWER TO Eix another time for 
the election of Representatives in Con¬ 
gress. The Committee had not deemed 
it necessary to determine what those 
reasons are, for, with all due respect to 
the opinions of the gentlemen compris¬ 
ing THAT Legislature, they are of opin¬ 
ion that this House must be the final 
judge, Sdc. And for the reasons stated 
the Committee have no doubt that the 
Constitution of the State has fixed 
BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE 
LEGISLA'rLHtE the time for holding 
an election for Representatives in Con- 
i gress, at the general election, to be held 
biennially, and that at such election so 

' held IN PURSUANCE OF THE CONSTITUTION, 

the contestant was duly elected.” 

I submit that this report is conclus- 
; ive, as to the main quesion involved in 
my own case. Substitute “ place ” for 
“ time,” and the two cases would be al¬ 
most parallel. But this doctrine enun¬ 
ciated in Shi el’s case was not a novel 
one, as I will show. His case came before 
the House, and during the debate a mo¬ 
tion was made to reject both of the 
parties, and it was said in advocating 
this proposition, that no other power 
than the Legislature of a State has a 
right to fix the time of holding a Con¬ 
gressional election. ^Ir. Daw^es, in sup¬ 
port of his report, says, “THAT THE 
ORGANIC LAW, that which rises 

ABOVE, AND SWALLOWS UP ALL LEGISLATIVE 
ACTIONS, having determined that this 
j election shall be held on a particular 
I day, in a specific manner, tt;c., it occurs 
; to me in that provision of the Consti- 
i tution of the United States which says 
i that the time and place shall be speci- 
! fied by the Legislature of each State 
I meant simply that they sho^l be fixed 
I by the constituted authcxif^s of the 
' State until Congress shall fix a time.” 
When the vote was taken in the House, 
the position assumed by the committee 
was triumphantly sustained, and among 





those who were then unwilling to coun¬ 
tenance such principles as are contended 
for in opposing my case, I am rejoiced 
to find the name of my gallant compe¬ 
titor. [See case of Shiel ys. Thayer, 
Bartlett’s Contested Election cases, page 
349. 

I ought to examine the election cases 
somewhat in a chronological order, but 
as Mr. Trowbridge had so appropriately 
placed himself upon the records of 
Congress sustaining the true constitu¬ 
tional principle, I trust I may be par¬ 
doned for anticipating the foregoing 
case. 

The next one I shall cite bearing up¬ 
on the question, was Kelly vs. Harris, 
in 1813. [Clarke and Hall’s Contested 
Elections, 260.] The committee on 
elections, in their repor1y, ,say, “ By the 
testimony of Obarr he had not a free¬ 
hold in the district, nor had he been liv¬ 
ing more than three months in the same 
at the time of the election. By the 
third article of the Constitution of 
Tennessee, it is provided that every | 
fi-eeman of the age of twenty-one years j 
and upwards, possessing a freehold in 
the county wherein he may vote, and 
being an inhabitant of this State, and 
every freeman - being an inhabitant of 
any one county of the State six months 
immediately preceedin^ the election, 
shall be entitled to vote ibr members of 
the general; assembly, for the county in 
which he shall reside. 

The committee are of opinion that 
that branch-of the< article which,pre¬ 
scribes the second qualification of the 

voter, RESTRICTS HIM TO VOTE IN THE 
COUNTY wherein HE HAS BEEN AN INHABI¬ 
TANT six , MONTHS > IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING 
THE DAY OF ELECTION, AND PERMITS 

HIM TO VOTE NOWHERE ELSE.” 

The following references are( to the 
excellent compilation recently made by 
D. W. Bartlett, Esq., Sec’y of the Com¬ 
mittee on Elections. 

In Farlee vs. Runk, in the 29th Conn 
gress, it appeared that certain votes 
^Yere given for the sitting member, Mr. 
Runk, by students in Princeton College, 
thus giving him a majority. The elec¬ 
tion was held in Nov., 1844. By a law 
of; New Jersey, passed in March, 1844, 
students 'were expressly prohibited from 


voting, except at their place of actual 
residence. The new Constitution of New' 
Jersey went into effect Oct. 1st, 1844, 
and by that, students in certain cases, 
though prohibited to vote by the Leg¬ 
islature of the State, were authorized in 
effect so to do by the new Constitution. 
In the report of the committee rejecting 
the application of Mr. Farlee, they call 
the Constitution of the State the “ funda¬ 
ment law,” superseding the legislative 
acts. [See page 90. 

I will also call the attention of the 
Committee to the remarks of the Chair¬ 
man of the Committee of Elections,. 
1850, in Miller vs. Thompson, page 136,. 
Cont. Elec. 

“But it was said that these persons all 
resided, within the Congressional Dis¬ 
trict, and'that it was unimportant; there¬ 
fore, in what county their votes were 
counted. This amounted to the very 
things, again St w'hioli he w^as contending/ 
IT WAS AN ASSERTION OF THE 
POWER OF THIS HOUSE TO DIS¬ 
REGARD ENTIRELY A CONSTI¬ 
TUTIONAL RESTRICTION!” 

In How^ard vs. Cooper, page 284, Mr. 
Dawes, in debate, said : “ The Consti¬ 

tution and Laws of Michigan required 
that, in order to be a qualified voter 
in that State, there must be a residence 
three months within the State, and of 
ten days before the election within the 
township or ward where the vote is 
CAST.” Here again “ place ” is a qualifi¬ 
cation in its real sense. In examination 
of the many cases that have been before 
Congress during the last fifty years, I 
cannot find a principle enunciated that 
militates against me. 

The constitutional requirements of 
the States have invariably been respect¬ 
ed ; and though partizen strife has oflen 
manifi.ested itself both in the discussions 
and the votes, never has it been car¬ 
ried! so far as to trample upon the pro¬ 
visions of. a State Constitution, disre¬ 
gard the construction put upon that 
instrument by the highest State judica¬ 
ture, and admit a member when there 
could ibe no valid pretence that he w'as 
elected by constitutional votes. 

I havep»urposely refrained from mak¬ 
ing any reference to the decisions of 
courts, other than that of Michigan, as 




7 


that was the only authoritative 'one in 
construing our own constitution rfnd 
laws. I might multiply citations of au¬ 
thorities to accumulate proofs of the 
soundness of the positions I have as¬ 
sumed, but I deem that in this paper 
those presented are sufficient to fortify 
me on every point. On another occa¬ 
sion, and at another time, I may elabor¬ 
ate upon some of them. 

I trust that what I have set forth, 
brief though it be, will satisfy any dis- 


i passionate, unprejudiced person that 
I my competitor has no right to a seat 
i in the House, and in holding it, he is 
usurping a position to which he has no 
claim. 

That I had an undoubted majority of 
the constitutional votes cast at the elec¬ 
tion of Nov., 1864, is a fact, I believe, 
placed beyond cavil, and I confidently 
leave my case in your hands. 

AUG. C. BALDWIN. 

Washington, January 9,1860. 


APPENDIX A. 


{Extract from the Constitution of the State of 21ichi- 
gan of 183.5.1 

Article II, Sec. 1. “ In all elections, every 

white male citizen above the age of twenty-one 
years, having resided in the State six months 
next preceding any election shail be entitled to 
vote at such election, but no such citizen or in¬ 
habitant shall be entitled to vote except in tlie : 
district, county or township in which he shall * 
actually reside at the time of such eiection.” 
{Ameyidment to the Constitution of 1835, made in 1839, j 
as follows: \ 

“That so much of the tirst section of the sec- | 
ond article of the Constitution, as prescribes the 
place in which an elector may vote, and which is i 
in these words, to wit: ‘District, County or j 
Township,’ be abolished, and that the following j 
be submitted in the place thereof, to wit: ‘Town- | 
ship or Ward.’ ” [Laws of 1839, page 261. 

The Constitution of 183;5 and the amendment 
Avere superseded by the Constitution of 1850. 

[Exiract fron the Constitution of the State of Michi¬ 
gan of 1850.] 

Article Elections, Art, VII, Part of Sec. 1. 

“ But no citizen or inhabitant shall be an elector 
or entitled to vote unless he shall be above the 
age of twenty-one years, and has resided in this 
State three months, and in the township or ward 
in which he offers to vote, ten days next preced¬ 
ing such election.” 


APPENDIX B. 


[Extract from the Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, 
Feb., 1865.] 

“We suppose, however, that the time for argu¬ 
ment and appeal are both passed, and that lax 
morals and reckless partisan leadership have placed 
the Legislature, even while we now write., in an irre- 
trieveably false position. If so, it is a matter of proud 
consciousness that the republican masses are 
uncontaminated. They will submit to the de¬ 
cision of the highest court of the State and repu- 
diatethemen who defy it. Every member of 
the Legislature who votes to defy the de¬ 
cision of the Supreme Court thereby digs 
HIS political grave and sets up his tomb¬ 
stone. He may take a long farewell of 

ALL HIS AMBITIONS. THE PEOPLE COULD FOR¬ 
GIVE HIS ERROR AND INFATUATION, AVERE IT 
NOT THAT SO INFIRM A JUDGMENT AND FEE¬ 
BLE A MORAL SENSE MUST EVER RENDER HIS 
ELEVAViON A PUBLIC DANGER. We make no 
unenace or forge no malediction, '.but claim to 


speak in the voice of prophecy that Avhich is in* 
evitable.” 

{From the Sanilac Jeffersonian of Feb. 4.] 

The effect of it, is simply to annul the soldiers’ 
A^ote, except so far as its influence is concerned. 
The fact that the vote Avas nearly unanimous for 
the principles promulgated by the Republican 
party in the last campaign cannot be forgotten, 
nor that one member of the next Congress (the 
Hon. A. C. Baldwin) Avill OAve his election to the 
throwing out of the vote of our country’s de¬ 
fenders. 

[From the Tuscola Pioneei' of Feb., 1865, referring 
to the Legislature of Michigan.^ 

“ The language used by members on this occa¬ 
sion, we consider beneath the dignity of mem¬ 
bers of any respectable organization. The stab 
at the Advertiser, in pre\"enting its proprietors 
from obtaining pay for services rendered in good 
faith, and the personalities indulged in by the 
members I’eferred tOj we trust will be more than 
healed by the unanirhous support of an intelli¬ 
gent, conscientious and freedom-loving people. 
Shame on a Legislature that frames laws for a 
State with near a million people, spending the 
time of their constituents in devising means to 
punish a neAvspaper that dissented from its ac¬ 
tion, WHILE IN DOING SO, IT BUT SUS¬ 
TAINED THE OPINION OP THE SUPREME 
COURT OF THE STATE.” 

{From the Lansing Republican {the State paper,) of 
Feb. 8,1865.] 

THE SUPREME COURT DECISION. 

* * As the decision of the Supreme Court 

is a topic of discussion all over the State, Ave 
Avlll remark concerning it. * * * 

2. This decision having now been made, is 
binding on all the people, Avhether they believe 
in its correctness or not; and it should be car¬ 
ried out eA’erywhere, without evasion or delay. 
We might as well not have any Supreme Court, 
as to have one afid pay no attention to its decis¬ 
ions. 

3. The immediate effect Avill be to disfranchise 
more than 12,000 officers and soldiers, and to un¬ 
seat some tAventy or thirty countj' officers in va¬ 
rious parts of the State. It aj^pears that the 
towns of Lansing, Marshall, Niles, Ypsilanti, 
and some others held their elections Avithin the 
charter limits of adjoining cities, and therefore 
all Autes so given Avill be throAvn out. This will 
unseat many county officers, and some members 
of the Legislature of both parties, and it is 
claimed Avill secure the election of Trowbridge 
to Congress on the home vote. The vote of the 
town of Lansing thrown out Avill unseat three 
officers in this county. 

4. As to the seats of members in the Legisla¬ 
ture Avhich have been already passed upon, the 








decision will not aft’ect them. The House and 
Senate having determined who are members 
cannot get.them out of tlieir Houses except by ; 
expulsion for cause; and any attempt to remove 
them in any other way would be highly unjust j 
to the i)artie8, and Avould place the l)ody doing 
it in a ridiculous attitude before the public. j 
5. The case is entirely different, however, 
with regard to the seats for wliich neiv contest- ' 
ants may appear since this decision was ren- i 
dered. It is true that each House is an absolute ' 
judge of the qualifications and election of its ! 
own members, and no power can prevent it from j 
doing just as it pleases. But, in taking action on | 
these seats, the members are as much bound by < 
the decision of the Court as any other citizens; i 
and in becoming legislators, they do not throw \ 
off their liabilities as citizens. A refusal on 
their part in determining wlio are entitled to j 
seats, to pay any attention to the decision of the i 
Court, looks to us like an actual nullification of | 
it. We do not see any way for them to evade ; 
their obligations in this respect, if they were in- j 
dined to do so, unless it be by asserting that i 
everybody in the State is bound by the decisions 
of the Supreme Court except legislators, and 
they are a iwivileged class of men.' 


APPENDIX C. 

Contain inp extracts from the report of the Committee 
of the House of Itepresentatives of Mictiigan, as to 
the question of “res ad judicata.'" 

At file commencement of the present session 
it appeared bj' some of the certificates held by 
members, and petitions presented by contestants 
claiming seats, that the only grounds on which 
seats were contested Avas, that the law authoriz¬ 
ing soldiers to vote when personally absent from 
the township in which they resided, had been 
enacted by tlie Legislature in violation of the 
Constitution of this State. This was the direct 
question and only question presented for the 
House to pass upon. 

This House, in its judgment and decision, pas¬ 
sed fully upon that question, and did judicially 
determine and declare that said law, entitled “an 
act to enable the qualified electors of this State, 
in the military service, to vote at certain elec¬ 
tions,” etc., was a valid law, and that the same 
was not a violation of the Constitution. Under 
and by virtue of said judgment and decision, 
the rights of membership became vested in all 
those whose elections depended upon the Azotes 


cast under and by Aurtue of said laAv. And In 
the opinion of your committee tlie question has 
become res adyudtcato, and should be adliert‘d to 
by this legislative bocly Avith even more tenacity 
than is exhil>ited by courts of Iuav in adliering 
to tiieir judicial jiulgmentsand determinations. 

* * * Prior to the decision of the Supreme 
Court, this House had decided that the soldiers’ 
A’^ote should be permitted to take effect in four 
several cases. 

* * .i: neither offer to nor accept any 

challenge from them Avhich may lead to a con¬ 
flict. Our judgment must control as to tlie elec¬ 
tion of our members; their judgment, by tlie 
law of the land Avill control the action of all th<» 
inferior courts, theexecutiA'e officers of the State, 
and the people in all the private Avalks of life. 
The effect of their judgment Avill be that no elec¬ 
tion can again be held under the law in (lues- 
tion, because tlie officers Avho carry on the ma¬ 
chinery of an election are properly under the 
control, and must yield their judgment to that 
of the courts. 

* * * But, belieA’ing the question to hav’c 
been heretofore settled, finally adjudicated, they 

i luiA’e directed their chairman to report^the se\ - 
eral petitions and accompanying documents, 
Avith tlie folloAving preamble and resolutions, 
tlie resolutions being numbered from one to ten, 

I inclusiA’e: 

Whereas, By the Constitution of Michigan, the 
judicial poAV'er and authority to “judge of quali¬ 
fications, election and return of members,” are 
I A'ested in each House of the Legislature ; 

And whereas, At the commencement of this 
session, in judging of the election of members, 
Avhoae right to seats in this House depended upon 
^ the legality and A-alidity of the soldiers’ A'ott‘, 

, under the act entitled “ an act to enable the qual- 
I ifieil electors of this State, in the military ser- 
Auce, to A^ote at certain elections,” etc., it Avas 
i then judicially declared by this House^ that said 
j A’otes should be regarded in determining the 
! question of election, upon Avhich determination 
! and decision, members Avere admitted to seats 
j on this floor; therefore, 

j 1. Resolved, That in the opinion and judgment 
of this House, it would be a dangerous and un¬ 
justifiable exercise of poAver on the part of this 
body, to rcA'oke and set aside said determination 
I and decision, and thereby eject from this House 
I such members as ma.A’’ hold their seats by A'irtue 
I of the soldiers’votes, cast in pursuance of the 
’ act above recited. 




